A Bush Away From Peace

THE WAR in the Middle East ain't over yet.

Sure, America has defeated Iraq. But all of the Arab states, with the exception of Egypt, are still in a declared state of war against Israel.

Having settled accounts with Saddam Hussein, America now has an historic opportunity to help resolve the 43-year-old conflict between the Arabs and Israel. That demands a new approach to the peace process, one which capitalizes on America's influence in the region while recognizing Arab intransigence as the major obstacle to peace.

While Congress has adopted this sort of new thinking, President Bush remains stuck on the obsolete peace proposals of the past, refusing to ask America's Arab allies to take the first steps toward peace with Israel. With Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states owing their national existences to the U.S., is that so much to ask?

THE LATEST demonstration of Congress's fresh approach to the peace process--a concurrent resolution passed two weeks ago--called on Arab states to make real moves toward peace with Israel.

"All Arab nations which have refused to recognize Israel and have maintained a state of belligerency with the state of Israel," the resolution read, "should recognize Israel, end the economic boycott against Israel, end the state of belligerency with Israel, and enter into direct negotiations with Israel to achieve these objectives."

More than a week ago, a delegation of U.S. legislators presented the crown prince of Kuwait with a letter signed by 90 senators, urging the Kuwaiti government to end its economic boycott of Israel. Such a move on Kuwait's part would be a major confidence-building measure, and would also benefit many U.S. contractors who do business with Israel and are thus not currently allowed by the Kuwaiti government to help rebuild that devastated country.

Not surprisingly, the crown prince's response was negative. Kuwait's membership in the Arab League, the prince said, prevented it from taking such bold steps in relations with Israel.

But what could he say if President Bush made the same request? The bottom line is that Kuwait and other Arab states are unlikely to heed the helpful proposals of Congress if they lack the president's endorsement. The legislative branch's authority on foreign affairs only goes so far.

CONGRESS'S FOCUS on the Arab states seems to be the sensible one, given that in recent weeks the Israelis have done their part to encourage the start of peace talks. First, in an effort to prevent conflict with Arab members of the anti-Iraq coalition, Israel refrained from retaliating after 39 Scud missile attacks terrorized and even killed members of its civilian population.

That restraint was followed by a flurry of statements from Israeli officials that show the Jewish state's desire to sit down with Palestinian representatives and leaders of Arab countries to work out a peace settlement for the region.

On March 5, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said, "We are ready to talk to any and every Arab country about peace without any preconditions." He reaffirmed that Israel stands by its two-track peace plan of May 1989, which would lead to autonomy for Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Soon after Shamir's statement, other members of the Israeli government went even further than the prime minister in voicing Israel's desire for peace negotiations. In a speech on March 17, Minister of Health Ehud Olmert said that once Arab states sit down at the bargaining table, everything would be up for discussion--including, in Syria's case, the status of the Golan Heights.

Olmert began his talk by saying that he was speaking on behalf of the prime minister. Shamir later distanced himself from the minister's remarks, but more as a result of political pressure than of a real difference of opinion over the territorial question. Olmert is, after all, the prime minister's right-hand man and frequently a mouthpiece for Shamir's foreign policy announcements.

BUT IN response to this new potential for peace, the Bush administration has failed to present much creative thinking of its own. Last Thursday, The New York Times reported that Baker and Bush are leaning towards convening regional peace talks hosted by the United States and the Soviet Union. In addition to lacking a mechanism that might bring the Arabs and Israelis to the negotiating table, the very idea of a multinational peace conference is a dead letter with the Israelis, who fear they may be railroaded into an unfavorable settlement.

The plan that holds the greatest potential for peace is direct bilateral talks between Arab states and Israel. This framework led to the only Arab-Israeli peace that has been achieved in the Middle East--the Camp David Accords of 1978, which produced a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that still stands today.

It took a trip to Tel Aviv by Egypt's then-President Anwar Sadat, which implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist, to get that process rolling. A move by any of the Arab countries to end the economic boycott, cease the state of war with Israel or simply agree to sit down and talk could lead to similarly significant breakthroughs.

Congress realizes that this is the only path that might truly lead to peace--but it can't singlehandedly make it work. The fluid state of diplomacy in the Middle East will not last long unless the Bush administration, which took upon itself the responsibility of stopping aggression in the region, now finishes the job it began.

President Bush and his advisers must urge their Arab allies to enter into direct bilateral talks with Israel. Israel has already taken the first steps. Now it's time for Bush, Baker and the Arab nations to register a reasonable response.